We don't have liberals or conservatives running this country. We basically have corporate lackeys with two different marketing campaigns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to conservatives isnt the 'invisible hand' of competition supposed to be a self-regulating force that works best without government intervention?
Why is it that conservatives stop being conservative when large corporations want things to go their way in defiance of the wishes of the marketplace (such as file sharing)? Someone help me out here.
I've been using the Torque engine for sometime. And I gotta say, these guys are doing it right! People still play Tribes 2 and it can handle 60 (yes six-zero) players on a beefy box with little lag. Props out to them.
I firmly believe that a huge and overlooked reason for outsourcing is that it lets the people involved in the management end of business regain some control that the internal IT folks have taken from them. I've had experiences working with IT departments who end up holding the entire company hostage because they control the technology. When your business stragety takes a back-seat to your technology decisions you are in bad shape. I think many c/upper level management types just don't know what to do other than send the whole beauracratic mess overseas where at least they don't get bullied into making decisions by some tech guy who spews acronyms at him.
This would be a VERY wise thing for Apple to do for many many reasons. However, if I were Apple I would ask something in return - allow the real-media format to play as a component of QuickTime.
Is a horrible system. I created a persistant world called Dor Maeglin and hundreds of hours were spent nerfing and adjusting the game for balanced play.
As you increase useability, security goes down by rule.
That is complete and utter nonsense and only holds true when you are working with incompetents or people with stunted problem solving skills.
Your example is faulty out the yin-yang because you could have a usable interface to securely set-up a system with those very things you mention as being insecure.
What it generally boils down to is having the developer form the experience around the behaviors of the user rather than make the user conform to how the developers thinks they should react to the software. This typically pisses-off developers and makes them resent the very people they are writing the software for.
To equate good usability with bad security is retarded and prejudicial. People who endorse that thinking in the linux community are, in my mind, the biggest hurdle to the widespread adoption of Linux on the desktop. Adding ill-conceived and ill-planned COMPLEXITY can lead to security issues but usability concerns, whether command line or GUI, don't have to.
Of course if you have elitist programmer types who use their case-modded Amiga's to talk to talk to each in Klingon don't expect your user experience to be one 'Joe User' can use or enjoy. If you are one of those people who are disdainful of people not as smart as you and want to keep Linux/OSS in the hands of your CRT tanned brethren then by all means continue to disparage and FUD usability all day long - just don't complain about Linux's adoption - EVER.
A few things for folks to remember:
Usability does not mean GUI. It's about performing tasks in the fewest steps requiring the least amount of memorization by the greatest number of targeted users.
Computer savvy people are atypical users. I may respect how a race-car driver drives his car and maintains his machine and there is no-doubt that he is a better driver than me. But if I need to go to the store and buy groceries or go out drinking with some-friends - not only is in inefficient for me to use a car designed for someone like that but its also uncomfortable and dangerous.
What amuses me, in a horrific end-of-the-world kind of way, is that the introduction of anything new into an ecosystem has ALWAYS had a impact on the whole system. Just becuase the human perception of time can't see the change by staring at it for 5 minutes doesnt mean the change is not there or any less profound. Change that moves that slow has to be proved by science which, as we know, is becomming just another corporate whore.
Also, look at the damage non-indenengous species have wrecked. South Florida is losing tons of fish due to the introduction non-native species. Kudzu is a foreign import. The huge rats-things called Nutria. Etc. Boy, I bet Monsanto will make a fortune in Feral Mutant Killer (to protect the children!) in 10 years time.
I've seen that. Why bother with all that thinking anyway? For a small fee we can turn your prejudices into sound business reasoning and, for no extra cost, give you an expert to point at when shit turns sour. Not a bad business model.
How well do you trust a companies research when they use telemarketers to try and sell it to you? I had a Forrester woman call me well over 50 times in one year about buying their reports. And of course if you pay them for a custom report, a service they offer, I'm sure your extant point of view could certainly be objectively supported.
No one buys reports from these companies to actually learn anything. The primary purpose these companies serve is to give companies objective sounding quotes to pepper their marketing material with and to convince risk averse managers that they are safely following the largest herd.
Your pants analogy is inherently faulty. If pants could be designed to adapt perfectly to the shape of most of it's users - while maybe not doing so well with like 5% - then yes the analogy holds water.
Also, innovation has NOTHING to do with usability. Be innovate in your code, be innovative in solving the problem - but when it comes to the average joe be USEFUL.
You will always be INNOVATIVE in the eyes of your users if they percieve your product to be more USEFUL.
There exist many many ways to test, and acurately qualify, the effectiveness of one GUI over another - the foremost being task analysys. Get a group as diverse as your intended user base and get them to perform tasks typical to their needs. Ask them questions. Observe them using the OS. Try out different GUI implementations. Etc. You will end up with one OS on top.
I love all the work the open source community has done - and I am huge supporter. HOWEVER, I am so goddamned sick of the attitudes some freesoftware advocates have concerning non technical users and usability in general. One poster suggested that just because an application's UI sucks doesnt mean the software sucks. I'm sorry but that is the type of thinking that makes me want to shoot someone. Bad usablity IS bad software. PERIOD. If you want your software to impress your buddies at source forge and get a signed propeller beanie from Linus - then by all means, continue to create difficult and hard to use applications. However, unlike most developers, users don't want to think about the application - they want to complete the task.
Programmers make the worst test subjects for testing usability. Programmers drive the UI of OSS/Freesoftware.
As much as I hate to say this - most programmers, and typically NOT the good ones, harbor some resentment towards unsophisticated users by virtue of the fact that they are not techies. The best programmers are those that think in terms of tasks/usability before they even open an IDE.
I hope OSX can inspire Gnome/KDE folks to make better, and more UI cohesive, applications.
How many dead in your story about Miami? How many wounded? How many put in concentration camps? How many sent to Orwellian 1984-style re-education?
Are you actually OK with having people excercising their right to protest incarcerated because their views differ from the governments? FYI, folks were indeed wounded in Miami. Have you studied what occurs before things get as bad as you outline? Let me know if you notice any patterns and get back to me. Just because the patient isnt dead doesnt mean we should ignore the early symptoms.
Why is there always a they? Who are they? Specifically what have they personally done that should make us all so frightened?
The word 'they' is used as shorthand because I refer to the government earlier on. You mis-characterize my position as extreme and assume paranoid.
Trying to get people to do something that's not in their best interest by appealing to their fear is destructive and wrong.
I couldnt agree more. Using fear to get people to dimish their civil liberties or push political agendas is indeed destructive and wrong - esp. by an administration who has been as opportunistic milking terrorism for every cent.
Government oppression can happen in the US. Terrorism has happened recently in the US.
Both have happened in the U.S. and both recently (see previous post) and historically. It all depends on your definition of what government oppression is and what is your personal level of tolerance for it.
There's a balance to deciding what to do. It's not all one side or the other.
Absolutely. I'm saying we're well on the road to being imbalanced. Just because one group of people say 2+2 =4 and another say 2+2=6 doesnt make 5 any less wrong for being the 'moderate' choice.
I'm a reasonable person and I'm concerned. I base my decisions on recent history. For example:
During the Miami Free Trade summit, this wonderful government we should trust with all our information gave the city of Miami $8.5 million for "anti-terrorism" security , as part of an $87 billion appropriations bill for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Here are just a few highlights from the FT summit in Miami:
Use of undercover "snatch squads". There were groups of plainclothes officers who mingled with the crowd to arrest people without warning.
Reporters with the corporate news sources were kept behind police lines. Reporters were decked out in full riot gear, like embedded journalists in a war zone.
Independant journalists, and particularly indymedia reporters, were frequently arrested, or had their video cameras, film, and notepads seized.
Even the permitted labor march did not escape harassment, as the police turned away several busses full of retired union members from the Alliance of Retired Americans who were trying to travel to the march.
What on earth makes you think they wouldnt abuse a system like the one described here? Look at how quickly they took money earmarked for Iraq and used it against protestors.
Acusing someone of being alarmist is a hollow argument - it the validity of the warning that should be addressed.
What is your factual basis for assuming the best in our goverment is the best course of action? When in our history (or in history in general) has blind trust ever been rewarded by honrable action by our government?
You say:
"The so-called "anti-globalization" drummings of a few highly-motivated but ultimately uninformed marchers is neither as significant, nor as threating to "the man" as to warrant the kind of Gestapo tactics you're talking about."
You are wrong and here are my facts to support it. You may or may not be aware of this but during the Miami Free Trade summit they really did use Gestapo tactics and the "the man" certainly felt that the event was threatening.
Here are just a few highlights from the FT summit in Miami:
Use of undercover "snatch squads". There were groups of plainclothes officers who mingled with the crowd to arrest people without warning.
Reporters with the corporate news sources were kept behind police lines. Reporters were decked out in full riot gear, like embedded journalists in a war zone.
Independant journalists, and particularly indymedia reporters, were frequently arrested, or had their video cameras, film, and notepads seized.
Even the permitted labor march did not escape harassment, as the police turned away several busses full of retired union members from the Alliance of Retired Americans who were trying to travel to the march.
The federal government gave the city of Miami $8.5 million for "anti-terrorism" security at the talks, as part of an $87 billion appropriations bill for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Now let me be clear. They used money for the war in Iraq to quash protesters in Miami. I'm a reasonable person and I'm concerned. What on earth makes you think they wouldnt use a system like the one described here to monitor folks with such political views?
This really scares me. I am confident that such technologies, as soon as they are entrenched, will start being used against anti-corp, anti free-trade groups rather quickly. Once they run out of Arab's with H-1 visas they are going to go after people with subscriptions to ADBUSTERS. What's the criteria for 'connection' or proximity to a "nexus of terrorism"?
Look at it this way: they are going to rate people the same way good spam-filters rate incoming email to determine if they are spam. They'll probably be more right than wrong - but heaven help you if you fall through the cracks. No ability to fly. No ability to attend large gatherings. The ability to literally clip the wings of dissenting voices becomes a heck of lot easier.
Lets look at who gets access: operators of critical infrastructure facilities - with the right lobbyist this could mean just about any large corporation. Microsoft would certainly qualify. Would about Coke? Ford motor company? Nike? They keep America financially strong - and what's good for Microsoft is good for American by golly!
organizers of large events - such as political conventions? Concerts with bands whose message may contain material not suitable for fundamentalist ears?
This is wise-wise-wise advice. However, why stop there? Why not make the entire DRM system a sub-set of QuickTime and get acceptance for other non-audio formats as well? QuickTime is the high-end standard and with the new Pixlet format apple already has a HD leg-up on other folks.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't have liberals or conservatives running this country. We basically have corporate lackeys with two different marketing campaigns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to conservatives isnt the 'invisible hand' of competition supposed to be a self-regulating force that works best without government intervention?
Why is it that conservatives stop being conservative when large corporations want things to go their way in defiance of the wishes of the marketplace (such as file sharing)? Someone help me out here.
I've been using the Torque engine for sometime. And I gotta say, these guys are doing it right! People still play Tribes 2 and it can handle 60 (yes six-zero) players on a beefy box with little lag. Props out to them.
I firmly believe that a huge and overlooked reason for outsourcing is that it lets the people involved in the management end of business regain some control that the internal IT folks have taken from them. I've had experiences working with IT departments who end up holding the entire company hostage because they control the technology. When your business stragety takes a back-seat to your technology decisions you are in bad shape. I think many c/upper level management types just don't know what to do other than send the whole beauracratic mess overseas where at least they don't get bullied into making decisions by some tech guy who spews acronyms at him.
This would be a VERY wise thing for Apple to do for many many reasons. However, if I were Apple I would ask something in return - allow the real-media format to play as a component of QuickTime.
Is a horrible system. I created a persistant world called Dor Maeglin and hundreds of hours were spent nerfing and adjusting the game for balanced play.
Your example is faulty out the yin-yang because you could have a usable interface to securely set-up a system with those very things you mention as being insecure.
What it generally boils down to is having the developer form the experience around the behaviors of the user rather than make the user conform to how the developers thinks they should react to the software. This typically pisses-off developers and makes them resent the very people they are writing the software for.
Because you have all these anti-usability and anti-GUI dunderheads running amok.
Of course if you have elitist programmer types who use their case-modded Amiga's to talk to talk to each in Klingon don't expect your user experience to be one 'Joe User' can use or enjoy. If you are one of those people who are disdainful of people not as smart as you and want to keep Linux/OSS in the hands of your CRT tanned brethren then by all means continue to disparage and FUD usability all day long - just don't complain about Linux's adoption - EVER.
A few things for folks to remember:
What amuses me, in a horrific end-of-the-world kind of way, is that the introduction of anything new into an ecosystem has ALWAYS had a impact on the whole system. Just becuase the human perception of time can't see the change by staring at it for 5 minutes doesnt mean the change is not there or any less profound. Change that moves that slow has to be proved by science which, as we know, is becomming just another corporate whore.
Also, look at the damage non-indenengous species have wrecked. South Florida is losing tons of fish due to the introduction non-native species. Kudzu is a foreign import. The huge rats-things called Nutria. Etc. Boy, I bet Monsanto will make a fortune in Feral Mutant Killer (to protect the children!) in 10 years time.
As an American I can confirm your outrage.
I've seen that. Why bother with all that thinking anyway? For a small fee we can turn your prejudices into sound business reasoning and, for no extra cost, give you an expert to point at when shit turns sour. Not a bad business model.
Uh, Troll-boy. These companies are DEVOTED TO MAKING MONEY not research. RESEARCH just happens to be the product they are selling.
How well do you trust a companies research when they use telemarketers to try and sell it to you? I had a Forrester woman call me well over 50 times in one year about buying their reports. And of course if you pay them for a custom report, a service they offer, I'm sure your extant point of view could certainly be objectively supported.
No one buys reports from these companies to actually learn anything. The primary purpose these companies serve is to give companies objective sounding quotes to pepper their marketing material with and to convince risk averse managers that they are safely following the largest herd.
Your pants analogy is inherently faulty. If pants could be designed to adapt perfectly to the shape of most of it's users - while maybe not doing so well with like 5% - then yes the analogy holds water.
Also, innovation has NOTHING to do with usability. Be innovate in your code, be innovative in solving the problem - but when it comes to the average joe be USEFUL.
You will always be INNOVATIVE in the eyes of your users if they percieve your product to be more USEFUL.
There exist many many ways to test, and acurately qualify, the effectiveness of one GUI over another - the foremost being task analysys. Get a group as diverse as your intended user base and get them to perform tasks typical to their needs. Ask them questions. Observe them using the OS. Try out different GUI implementations. Etc. You will end up with one OS on top.
I love all the work the open source community has done - and I am huge supporter. HOWEVER, I am so goddamned sick of the attitudes some freesoftware advocates have concerning non technical users and usability in general. One poster suggested that just because an application's UI sucks doesnt mean the software sucks. I'm sorry but that is the type of thinking that makes me want to shoot someone. Bad usablity IS bad software. PERIOD. If you want your software to impress your buddies at source forge and get a signed propeller beanie from Linus - then by all means, continue to create difficult and hard to use applications. However, unlike most developers, users don't want to think about the application - they want to complete the task.
Programmers make the worst test subjects for testing usability. Programmers drive the UI of OSS/Freesoftware.
As much as I hate to say this - most programmers, and typically NOT the good ones, harbor some resentment towards unsophisticated users by virtue of the fact that they are not techies. The best programmers are those that think in terms of tasks/usability before they even open an IDE.
I hope OSX can inspire Gnome/KDE folks to make better, and more UI cohesive, applications.
How many dead in your story about Miami? How many wounded? How many put in concentration camps? How many sent to Orwellian 1984-style re-education?
Are you actually OK with having people excercising their right to protest incarcerated because their views differ from the governments? FYI, folks were indeed wounded in Miami. Have you studied what occurs before things get as bad as you outline? Let me know if you notice any patterns and get back to me. Just because the patient isnt dead doesnt mean we should ignore the early symptoms.
Why is there always a they? Who are they? Specifically what have they personally done that should make us all so frightened?
The word 'they' is used as shorthand because I refer to the government earlier on. You mis-characterize my position as extreme and assume paranoid.
Trying to get people to do something that's not in their best interest by appealing to their fear is destructive and wrong.
I couldnt agree more. Using fear to get people to dimish their civil liberties or push political agendas is indeed destructive and wrong - esp. by an administration who has been as opportunistic milking terrorism for every cent.
Government oppression can happen in the US. Terrorism has happened recently in the US.
Both have happened in the U.S. and both recently (see previous post) and historically. It all depends on your definition of what government oppression is and what is your personal level of tolerance for it.
There's a balance to deciding what to do. It's not all one side or the other.
Absolutely. I'm saying we're well on the road to being imbalanced. Just because one group of people say 2+2 =4 and another say 2+2=6 doesnt make 5 any less wrong for being the 'moderate' choice.
I'm a reasonable person and I'm concerned. I base my decisions on recent history. For example:
During the Miami Free Trade summit, this wonderful government we should trust with all our information gave the city of Miami $8.5 million for "anti-terrorism" security , as part of an $87 billion appropriations bill for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Here are just a few highlights from the FT summit in Miami:
- Use of undercover "snatch squads". There were groups of plainclothes officers who mingled with the crowd to arrest people without warning.
- Reporters with the corporate news sources were kept behind police lines. Reporters were decked out in full riot gear, like embedded journalists in a war zone.
- Independant journalists, and particularly indymedia reporters, were frequently arrested, or had their video cameras, film, and notepads seized.
- Even the permitted labor march did not escape harassment, as the police turned away several busses full of retired union members from the Alliance of Retired Americans who were trying to travel to the march.
What on earth makes you think they wouldnt abuse a system like the one described here? Look at how quickly they took money earmarked for Iraq and used it against protestors.Acusing someone of being alarmist is a hollow argument - it the validity of the warning that should be addressed.
What is your factual basis for assuming the best in our goverment is the best course of action? When in our history (or in history in general) has blind trust ever been rewarded by honrable action by our government?
Absolutely. But we need to be involved in the discussion. At what point should we worry in your opinion?
Reality doesnt gibe with your charactarization.
You say:
"The so-called "anti-globalization" drummings of a few highly-motivated but ultimately uninformed marchers is neither as significant, nor as threating to "the man" as to warrant the kind of Gestapo tactics you're talking about."
You are wrong and here are my facts to support it. You may or may not be aware of this but during the Miami Free Trade summit they really did use Gestapo tactics and the "the man" certainly felt that the event was threatening.
Here are just a few highlights from the FT summit in Miami:
- Use of undercover "snatch squads". There were groups of plainclothes officers who mingled with the crowd to arrest people without warning.
- Reporters with the corporate news sources were kept behind police lines. Reporters were decked out in full riot gear, like embedded journalists in a war zone.
- Independant journalists, and particularly indymedia reporters, were frequently arrested, or had their video cameras, film, and notepads seized.
- Even the permitted labor march did not escape harassment, as the police turned away several busses full of retired union members from the Alliance of Retired Americans who were trying to travel to the march.
The federal government gave the city of Miami $8.5 million for "anti-terrorism" security at the talks, as part of an $87 billion appropriations bill for the rebuilding of Iraq.Now let me be clear. They used money for the war in Iraq to quash protesters in Miami. I'm a reasonable person and I'm concerned. What on earth makes you think they wouldnt use a system like the one described here to monitor folks with such political views?
Basically what you are telling us is that we shouldnt worry as long as they arent bothering us personally?
This really scares me. I am confident that such technologies, as soon as they are entrenched, will start being used against anti-corp, anti free-trade groups rather quickly. Once they run out of Arab's with H-1 visas they are going to go after people with subscriptions to ADBUSTERS. What's the criteria for 'connection' or proximity to a "nexus of terrorism"?
Look at it this way: they are going to rate people the same way good spam-filters rate incoming email to determine if they are spam. They'll probably be more right than wrong - but heaven help you if you fall through the cracks. No ability to fly. No ability to attend large gatherings. The ability to literally clip the wings of dissenting voices becomes a heck of lot easier.
Lets look at who gets access:
operators of critical infrastructure facilities - with the right lobbyist this could mean just about any large corporation. Microsoft would certainly qualify. Would about Coke? Ford motor company? Nike? They keep America financially strong - and what's good for Microsoft is good for American by golly!
organizers of large events - such as political conventions? Concerts with bands whose message may contain material not suitable for fundamentalist ears?
"Who cares about fancy colors or buttons."
There are these people called women I suggest you do some research on.
This is wise-wise-wise advice. However, why stop there? Why not make the entire DRM system a sub-set of QuickTime and get acceptance for other non-audio formats as well? QuickTime is the high-end standard and with the new Pixlet format apple already has a HD leg-up on other folks.